Gordon Brown: As he says, it is our closest ally and our single most important partner, so I use the term "special relationship" with pride.

Bernard Jenkin: In the spirit of the entente amicale as well as that of our special relationship with our American allies, may I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the state of relations between the EU and NATO, which the Defence Committee has urged should be a priority matter for next week's NATO summit? May I urge him to address what the American ambassador to NATO has called the senseless and frozen conflict between the two institutions and to secure the agreement of President Sarkozy, who we welcome in London today, to resolve the problem so that neither the EU undermines NATO, nor NATO the EU?

Rosie Winterton: What we have said is that we want local authorities themselves to consider what will work best. We would expect there to be wide consensus in the setting up of new bodies, and my hon. Friend will know better than I whether such consensus is likely to be reached at regional level. Of course, other transport planning measures are possible under other legislation, such as multi-area agreements. It is quite possible for local authorities to get together much more effectively than was previously the case and to plan more widely, and we are already seeing that. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that the changes that are taking place in relation to the regional development agencies and so on are causing people to look closely at how to deal with transport.
	Governance reforms could obviously be particularly beneficial in areas that are considering the role that road charging could play alongside investment in local public transport. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that it is for local authorities, not central Government, to decide whether local road charging is right for their areas. It confirms that scheme revenues are for the local authority involved to spend on local transport, even after the first 10 years of a scheme. It also ensures that the right powers are available to secure consistency and interoperability between schemes, helping to avoid confusion and complexity for road users.

Dari Taylor: My hon. Friend's point is incredibly valuable. I know of bus services that are cancelled, delayed, taken off—nobody knows about it and nobody answers when we ask why. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that a system of penalties should be included in the Bill so that operators know that if they do not deliver, we will?

Norman Baker: Let me begin by welcoming the Bill and indicating clearly that my colleagues and I will support its Second Reading. That is not to say that we do not have problems with it—naturally, we do—and we will seek to raise some of those this afternoon and again in Committee. However, the Bill undoubtedly takes us in the right direction.
	Before I come to those concerns, I must say something about the speech by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), which was the apex of incoherence as regards putting forward any sort of argument. She said that the statutory quality partnerships and contracts that had already been introduced were not working. That is quite true, and Bill has now been introduced to ensure that they do work by making it easier for local authorities to take part. She then said that certain issues in the Bill are worth exploring and acknowledged that it has some good points, but she then reached the conclusion that we should vote against Second Reading and abandon the Bill entirely. But that would mean that we would be unable to discuss those good points as they come up in Committee, unable to reform the current quality partnerships and contracts that she recognises are not working, and that we would be forced to carry on in some sort of Neverland where buses do not work properly, bus fares are going up and passengers are unable to get the service that they require. I do not know what kind of transport policy that is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) says, it shows the strategic understanding of Olive from "On the Buses". We deserve rather better than that. The hon. Lady said that she did not want to wind things back to the 1980s, but that is precisely what she is doing. She may not look like Mrs. Thatcher, but she certainly sounds like her at times.
	The Minister was kind enough to nick my line from last night about Mrs. Thatcher saying that that nobody over 30 uses a bus unless they are a failure in life. That is part of the problem. Buses have not been seen as a sensible transport alternative, instead, people have been driven on to the roads, and the consequence is that congestion is worsening, climate change is worsening as result of increased emissions from transport overall, and bus usage is declining. The Bill does not offer the perfect answer to that problem, but it goes some way towards resolving it.
	The Conservatives' alternative, in so far as there is one, is to go back to the days of unrestricted deregulation in the 1980s, but that has failed us. Hon. Members may remember Nicholas Ridley—the person who wanted councils to meet once a year to hand out contracts and who said, when he was Transport Secretary, that the aim of deregulation was
	"to halt the decline that has afflicted the bus industry for more than 20 years."—[ Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 192.]
	Since then, there has been a catastrophic decrease in bus usage, which has halved from nearly 9 billion journeys in the 1970s to 4.7 billion. However, there has been an increase in bus journeys in London—20 years ago one in five journeys were made by bus in London, and now it is almost two in five. London has been a rip-roaring success and the fantastic deregulation-world presented by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has been a total failure.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government should also have made more of their pledge to seek consensus by opening up discussions with all the major political parties before bringing forward a scheme.
	In the immediate aftermath of the petition, the Government announced an abandonment of the proposals. A few months later, abandonment changed to distancing themselves from road pricing. They stated:
	"It is not the department's intention, at this stage, to take the separate powers needed to price the national road network...We agree that there are congestion problems on parts of the strategic road network, but 88 per cent. of congestion is in urban areas. Therefore it is sensible to prioritise the assessment of road pricing in those areas."
	Asked to comment on where that left the national road pricing policy, the Transport Secretary said:
	"The debate about national road pricing has become increasingly sterile".—[ Official Report, 4 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 1589.]
	We heard nothing more about the matter until the Budget earlier this month, when the Chancellor put it firmly back on the agenda and announced funding for pilot scheme projects to develop road pricing technology.
	The Government have continually stressed that if they choose to introduce a national road pricing scheme, they will have to introduce a separate piece of primary legislation. So why are they bothering with the local schemes in this Bill? If they want road pricing, they should bring forward a national scheme and engage in a national debate on the issue, not bring forward such piecemeal local proposals. I have concerns that the Government intend to use such local schemes to test public opposition to road pricing.
	The Transport Committee has rightly criticised the Government for forcing councils to adopt local road pricing:
	"In the face of severe funding pressure we do not accept that Congestion Transport Innovation Fund guidance should, in effect, restrict the availability of funds for much needed improvements in transport infrastructure to only those authorities that will consider local road pricing schemes. This risks blackmailing local authorities to conduct road pricing trials on behalf of Government in advance of a possible national scheme."
	That is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough—it will not be a genuine choice. Blackmailing local authorities is not a new phenomenon for the Government—the Department for Transport is already doing it.
	My local authority, the East Riding of Yorkshire council, is excellent. Ministers have admitted that it has been excellent in many areas in comments made not only in this Chamber but in Westminster Hall. Recently, it wished to introduce some traffic management improvement schemes for the town of Bridlington. The Government agreed to provide funds only if it included a park-and-ride scheme. Blackmail was used to force the local authority, against the wishes of the local population, to include a park- and-ride scheme for the town. In case the Minister of State does not know, Bridlington is a seaside town and tourist resort. I have yet to hear of any family with young children, with buckets and spades and lilos, who wish to get to the beach using a park-and-ride scheme. Bridlington needs not a park-and-ride scheme but an inner-town multi-storey car park. However, it has been forced to adopt the park-and-ride scheme because of arm twisting by the Minister and her Department.
	The same thing happened in Birmingham. When the city council decided to remove some unpopular bus lanes, which were causing congestion, the then Transport Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in my hearing threatened to remove funding from Birmingham unless it reinstated the bus lanes. I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough that the Department for Transport is already blackmailing—

Paul Truswell: It is a pleasure to follow most of the contributions to the debate, and particularly pleasurable eventually to follow the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)—I apologise for mentioning him when he is not in his seat—who admirably performed the role of the parliamentary equivalent of a speed hump.
	I am delighted that the Bill has come before the House. My comments are intended to be supportive. Like some of my hon. Friends, I shall suggest ways in which it might be improved. For years, various Labour colleagues and I have striven to make the case for bus operators to be made more accountable to the communities and passengers whom they serve. Indeed, on occasions I have referred to myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), among others, as
	"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers".
	Now, we are joined by some energetic sisters in the shape of our hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Minister.
	During at least nine years of debates in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and elsewhere, it sometimes felt as though we had fired off all the ammunition supplied to us by constituents and our own personal experiences, only for it to bounce off the rather thick-skinned responses from Ministers suitably briefed by their civil servants. That is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers); beyond that, however, I cease to agree with anything that she said at all. While I am mentioning the hon. Lady, I should say that I displayed geographical ignorance earlier by not identifying the fact that she is herself a London MP. Given that, I wish to change what I said earlier and say that it is a pity that, if her party has its way, the benefits of regulation in London, which her constituents enjoy, will continue to be denied to my and most other Members' constituents.
	I accept that it is desirable for us to move forward on a voluntary basis if we can; one voluntary agreement is probably worth 10 pressed ones. I also accept that we need not necessarily always go down the road of quality contracts and that a range of measures could be deployed. Indeed, there might not be a quality contract for the whole area of regions such as West Yorkshire—not even for the whole of Leeds, where my seat is located; the contract might apply only to parts where it has been impossible to provide decent services by any other means.
	The hon. Lady painted a rather rosy, Elysian-fields picture of the products of bus deregulation, but it in no way conforms with my or my constituents' experiences. I wish I could say that it did and that the Bill was unnecessary. I cannot remember a time during my 11 years as an MP, or the years that I served as a councillor, when I have not been involved in taking up constituents' concerns about the removal of, or damaging changes to, services provided to local communities.
	Since deregulation, quality and standards have fallen dramatically and fares have gone up by almost 50 per cent. in real terms in West Yorkshire. The number of passengers has fallen by almost 40 per cent.—in round figures, that represents about 100 million passenger journeys. The declines in most other passenger transport executive areas have been even more precipitous; I understand that in PTE areas overall, patronage has fallen by about 50 per cent.
	The problem with the deregulated system is that bus companies can pick and choose what services they provide and make profits even when they provide a poor service. Services are chopped and changed and are missing or late. Passengers feel powerless and vote with their feet, if they can, by using their cars. Many people in my constituency—and I am sure that this picture is replicated the length and breadth of this country—are being denied a reliable and affordable service to work, schools, colleges, shops, health centres and hospitals. As a result, they turn to councillors, MPs and the passenger transport executives, but they find that nothing can be done to resolve the problems.
	While my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough was talking about having held public meetings, a Conservative Member shouted, "What next?" My hon. Friend did not rise to the bait, but we all know what is next—nothing at all. Communities, passengers, MPs and councillors can bring no power to bear on bus operators to ensure that they address the needs of passengers and communities.
	The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet talked about empowering customers, yet her party's amendment would deprive communities and their elected representatives of the ability to bring to bear powers that would provide the exact empowerment for which she purported to argue.
	Passenger transport executives subsidise about 13 per cent. of services, and the rest are simply out of their control. There is little or no competition for contracts, so it is absolutely impossible to gauge whether there is value for money. I intervened earlier to drive home the point that even in its own dogmatic, market-driven terms, deregulation has been a failure.
	The local network in my area comprises high-frequency routes such as service 4 into Pudsey, the 16 to Farsley and the 42 to Old Farnley, together with a combination of other routes on the Leeds-Bradford corridor. Services that serve local communities have been subject to successive changes that tend to have concentrated bus resources on high-frequency major routes, which are obviously primarily focused on generating profit. We talk about voluntary partnerships, but partnerships always exist on the basis of what bus operators are prepared to do; there are very few concessions to meet community needs.
	I will not run through the roll-call of services that have been lost in my constituency over the past 11 years, because it would take up far too much time. For example, changes to services in Guiseley and Yeadon have resulted in the loss of significant links with nearby Bradford, which has caused tremendous hardship for regular travellers who depend on those services. Frequency has been reduced on services that penetrate local housing estates and provide links to Pudsey town centre, to the Owlcotes shopping centre and to Bramley. There is a frequent service through the centre of Farsley, one of the small villages in my constituency, yet half a mile away older people living in sheltered accommodation have lost their vital bus link into the Farfield estate. Links to local facilities such as health centres, post offices and supermarkets are often ignored as part of the operator's service planning process. Another notable example in my constituency of the lack of bus links is the lack of any services to the recently rebuilt Wharfedale hospital and to primary health care facilities at Eccleshill in Bradford. I cannot remember a time when I have not been taking up bus service-related issues, and the present time is no exception. At the moment, my constituents and I are pursuing issues surrounding the removal of the 81 service, which serves several communities, and the 966 service that serves Yeadon.
	As other hon. Members have pointed out, the decline in bus services and patronage not only affects passengers but everyone, whether they use buses or not. Poor services lead to increased car use, which creates even more congestion, pollution and road safety hazards in our communities. The message in the Conservatives' amendment is, "We'll just have more of the same; we'll do nothing." They said that the Bill could have been introduced in various guises of which they might have been more supportive, but we have not been given any examples of what those approaches could have been.
	It is absolutely crucial that we get quality contracts right. We cannot have another false dawn such as that which many of us predicted in discussions relating to what eventually became the Transport Act 2000. It has taken us many years of cajoling and debate to get the message across that we needed to replace the "only practicable way" test. Like many of my colleagues who have this issue engraved into our very hearts and souls, I have some reservations about the process that is being proposed for the introduction of quality contracts. It feels as though having achieved the long-sought breakthrough, we are beginning to bend ever so slightly to the will of bus operators and, dare I say, the advice of civil servants. Quality contracts should be the last chance saloon; they should not be resorted to glibly or mischievously. Far from being in the last chance saloon, bus operators, through the process laid down in the Bill, will be able to engage in a quasi-legal pub crawl in the taprooms of the traffic commissioners and the transport tribunal before going for a big judicial booze-up in the courts. That will unnecessarily delay the process that is laid down. To move on to another analogy, I do not want an insuperable legal high-jump to be replaced by an interminable bureaucratic marathon. We do not need a long period of instability and uncertainty created by unnecessary tinkering with the structures and processes.
	It seems to me, especially in discussion with those responsible at the sharp end for delivering the measures in the Bill, that the new process could involve agreeing a plan with the Government on funding for associated bus priority measures, an inquiry by the traffic commissioners, an inquiry or appeal by the transport tribunal and, potentially, a judicial review. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley made it absolutely clear that whatever safeguards are built in, we will still find ourselves subjected to judicial review by bus companies who fight tooth and nail to prevent the introduction of quality contracts.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the approach as being belt and braces, but to my mind, it is not only belt and braces, but safety pins and keeping our hands in our pockets as well—it really over-eggs the process. Try as I may—hon. Members with more experience may be able to correct me—I have not been able to find a parallel in local government decision making for this two-stage appeal process followed by an opportunity to go to court. In planning, major decisions are made that affect individuals, companies and commercial interests through applications, enforcement notices and structure plans, but we do not have a three-tier, or two-tier—call it what you will—appeal process. We do not have such a process in environmental health enforcement, licensing appeals or the allocation of school places, so why do we need it in this case?
	Quality contracts in places such as Leeds and West Yorkshire will ultimately prove to be the only mechanism available to deliver the sort of services that communities need and passengers deserve. They should provide greater reliability because services will be thoroughly monitored and good performance incentivised. If we get them right, they will provide more stability with fewer changes to fares, times and frequencies. There will be better integration—a point made time and time again in this debate—and an ability to make services cleaner and greener, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) rightly said.
	Implicit in the Bill is the assumption that local authorities and passenger transport authorities, or whatever their successors are called, will somehow engage glibly and mischievously in the pursuit of quality contracts, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are so many risks and complex issues that have to be taken into account before anyone embarks on this process. The transition to quality contracts and the associated legal process would be difficult enough, even if the Bill were straightforward.
	Those who want to introduce such contracts will have to address issues such as the location of depots, bus fleets, or what to do if there is currently a monopoly, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. All sorts of approaches could be implemented, such as the closing down of depots. No local authority or passenger transport executive in its right mind will engage in the process unless it can be confident that it will achieve value for money, that resources will be better spent than under the status quo and that it will find operators to run the services laid down in the contract. To suggest otherwise is to fly in the face of reality, experience and logic.
	The point has been made about the extra measures introduced on statutory quality partnerships. To echo the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, if operators are not happy with what has been suggested, they can simply walk away. I have still to hear a cogent argument that explains why the measures are necessary in such situations.
	I close by saying that I welcome other measures referred to, such as the establishment of a bus champion. I hope that it will not be a half-hearted measure, but a rigorous proposal that has teeth and that is sufficiently regional or local for us to understand what the challenges facing passengers and communities might be.
	In conclusion, it came as no surprise that the Opposition oppose the Bill, and specifically the quality contract measures that it contains. Change must come. Those of us who have any affinity with our constituencies and any sympathy with those who depend on buses know that change must come. The status quo simply cannot be allowed to continue. The case is overwhelming. I, along with a number of my hon. Friends who have spoken, want to ensure that the Bill puts into effect practical proposals for ending the long nightmare for bus passengers that has followed from bus deregulation.

Clive Betts: I will concentrate my remarks on the contents of the Bill with regard to local bus services, and briefly mention integrated transport authorities and congestion charging at the end.
	Coming from South Yorkshire, as does my right hon. Friend the Minister, it is easy for me to lapse into thinking about the golden age of bus services in the late '70s and early '80s. We can have a bit of nostalgia for that, because when fares were 10p and 12p for adult passengers, tuppence for children and free for pensioners, people actually used their local buses. It was not uncommon to see in the same bus queue the steelworker in his overalls and the bank manager with his umbrella and bowler hat, because the bus services were for everyone. As a result, even motorists who used to complain about having to pay towards the costs of local bus services in their rates benefited, because they drove their car on relatively congestion-free roads.
	Within a couple of years of deregulation, bus fares were rising, passengers were disappearing and congestion was on the roads in the centre of Sheffield, where it has remained ever since. We can have too much nostalgia for the past—we must recognise that life has moved on, living standards have changed, and the ways in which people conduct their lives have altered. It is therefore unlikely that we would have kept the same degree of bus use, even within a regulated environment. We must also accept that there were questions about value for money at the time, and about the restrictive nature of some of the services offered. We would want to move on from that, so I do not argue for a return to those days. But many of my constituents, particularly the elderly, are nostalgic, because their daily experience of local public transport is that services have got a lot worse.
	Recently, passenger numbers have recovered slightly due to the elderly using their welcome free passes, for which the Government deserve great credit. Even so, for every person who rode a bus in Sheffield in 2006, there were three who rode a bus 20 years before. After deregulation, therefore, a third of the passengers are left. It is impossible to justify calling that a success; it is simply not working. The Conservative party's claim that no change in the system is needed for areas such as South Yorkshire is completely unsupported by the facts, the reality on the ground and the daily experience of my constituents. Local bus fares have gone through the roof—from 10p to £2. Has any public or other essential service risen as much in price over the same period? I cannot think of anything that has, but perhaps somebody else can.
	Congestion has arrived, with Sheffield becoming gridlocked on occasions over the past few years. The Government's welcome extra investment in the inner ring road has helped to address that, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) said, roads in the centre of Sheffield now have about 15 per cent. spare capacity at peak times. Traffic is growing at 2 to 3 per cent. a year, and it may slow slightly with the rise in fuel costs, but at some point gridlock will again be reached, unless something changes. I will deal with more such issues later.
	The reality for individuals is that they cannot plan their lives. At 42 days' notice, their lifeline—the local bus on which they rely—can be taken away. That lifeline might take someone to an early shift in a job across town, starting at 6 or 7 am. If the bus goes, their chance of that job goes. That lifeline might be needed by an elderly person to go to the home where their elderly spouse is. If that is taken away, that person may face either a journey of an hour and a half or two hours on several buses to get to that location or the prospect of moving their loved one. The service might be needed by an elderly person who can no longer get to a post office, or an elderly couple who cannot get to see their grandchildren because their residential situation has been based on the ability to get buses to do that and they do not have a car. It might be needed by young people who want to meet their friends in the centre of town at night and suddenly find that the bus does not run any more, which means that they either have to rely on their parents and lose their independence or not go out to their normal place of entertainment.
	All those things are essential parts of people's lives and they can be removed at 42 days' notice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said, when the complaints come, the services can be removed with virtually no chance of redress or there is virtually no chance of any change being made in response. It is a policy of social and economic exclusion because it hits most the young, the elderly and those on low incomes—the people who do not have ready access to a car. It discriminates against them more than any other group in society.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned the nonsense that for years the passenger transport executive in South Yorkshire has been trying to get through-ticketing among the various bus operators, but they will not have it. They want to concentrate on their own narrow interests and on making profits for their company. If people happen to live in an area where First runs the buses and they want to get on the tram, which is run by Stagecoach, it is hard luck. They will end up paying more because the through-ticketing simply does not work.
	We have the tram in South Yorkshire. I shall be a bit critical of my hon. Friend the Minister because it should be extended. It is a great system. It works. It is popular. The Youth Parliament did an excellent survey in Sheffield which assessed young people's attitude towards public transport. It was generally positive, but most positive about the tram, which it saw as a quality service because it was safe and reliable. It should run to Rotherham.
	The tram was a top concern when the regional assembly looked at its list of transport priorities, but the Government said that it was not worth the money. I am a bit critical of that, and we might return to it at another time. However, the tram was designed as part of an integrated public transport service. Bus services linked in to it so that people could get on the bus, get a feeder service on to the tram and get quickly into town. As soon as the tram came in, we got a deregulated environment and the bus companies saw it as their job not to co-ordinate with the tram, but to compete with it. They designed their bus routes to run parallel with the tram instead of linking into it. That is a policy of nonsense. It undermines and undervalues all the public investment that went into it.

Paul Rowen: May I apologise for missing the start of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker? I had another meeting to attend, which was tied in with my Front-Bench responsibilities.
	I join other hon. Members in welcoming the broad provisions in the Bill, particularly the end to deregulation. All who represent urban areas have seen the devastating effect that deregulation has had on our communities and on the bus services on which many of them rely so heavily. If one looks outside the urban areas and visits rural areas, one will see that the bus network has virtually disappeared; as hon. Members have said, buses are infrequent.
	Perhaps with one or two exceptions—places such as York, Cambridge and Brighton—deregulation has not worked, primarily because, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) said, we replaced what was largely a public monopoly—most bus companies were run by local councils—with a private monopoly; in most areas, it was replaced by five major bus companies operating in the conurbations. As he rightly said, the interests of those bus companies are about profit and maximising the amount of subsidy that they can get, rather than about providing a public service.
	I served on a passenger transport authority, where I saw what happens each year as it prepares its budget. I have seen how the bus companies juggle which services they will deregister to maximise the subsidy and how the PTA is then forced to make cuts in its regular subsidised service or to increase costs to students and, in the past, to pensioners. Such a system does not have a good effect in terms of enabling proper planning and ensuring that the bus service and bus network meets the needs of the local community.
	Deregulation has served those five major bus companies, especially when one compares the profits that those bus companies make with the return that they get in London, where there is a regulated network. In London, the return is 7, 8 or 9 per cent., but in Greater Manchester and Yorkshire, it is double that. In those urban areas, the private bus companies have profiteered at the expense of passengers and they are not providing the services that we want them to provide.
	I do not accept the claim by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that the past was a golden age. I remember one of my first actions as a local councillor was trying to get GM Bus, as it was at the time, to change a bus route, which proved impossible. When deregulation was introduced, we were promised that it would enable that responsiveness to passenger demand. That has not happened, and instead we have seen the withdrawal of bus services. An area such as Rochdale is primarily served by one company—FirstGroup—which provides a poor quality of service that does not meet local needs. Meeting local needs is not the company's aim, because its aim is maximising profit.
	I welcome the proposals in the Bill to introduce regulation, whether through quality contracts or quality partnerships. We have talked a lot about the ills of the past 20 years this afternoon, but we must start to consider what will happen now. As the price of oil increases—I am shocked that the Department for Transport works on an oil price of only $50 a barrel, when the reality is that it is already double that and likely to increase—and people are increasingly unable to use their cars, they will want to rely on public transport, so we need to develop those services. They need to be integrated and, at the same time, we need to address the environmental issues.
	Some of the problems that affect urban areas outside London are that our buses are less environmentally friendly, much older and do not deliver a very good service. That is why they are not attractive to people and why light rail is so much more attractive. One of the disappointments of the Bill is the fact that the total bus subsidy that is paid to the operators as well as to the passenger transport authorities has not been put together. I am talking about the vehicle excise duty rebate, which at the moment is going straight back to the bus companies. I know that the Government are consulting on that point, but it would make much greater sense if, during the passage of the Bill, we could include the VED rebate as a part of the subsidy and forming part of the quality contract. If we want to encourage bus operators to run buses that are full, modern and environmentally efficient, we should grant the subsidy to those operators that can deliver those benefits. That would be a powerful incentive.
	Other hon. Members have talked about the hurdles that are in place for quality contracts. We have had two Transport Acts now, but only one quality partnership contract has been signed. The problem is not, as the Minister suggested earlier, stopping other bus operators muscling in, because that is a problem only in a limited number of areas. In fact, such contracts are missing because the bus operators do not want to play ball and allow their frequencies and their fares to be controlled. At the moment, the operators have the whip hand.
	We have seen two failed attempts at introducing quality partnerships and quality contracts, and the Government need seriously to consider the proposals that are being made. I have always taken it as a fundamental principle that the best people to decide on which services there should be in an area are directly elected local people, whether they are councillors, MPs or whatever. The problem with the quality contract legislation is that although there are two stages beyond the transport authority's making a decision, I know what will happen with the likes of FirstGroup, Stagecoach and so on. They will prevaricate, delay, hold out and make it impossible for local authorities and transport authorities to get contracts up and running.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) had the right idea— although the transport commissioners or the transport tribunal ought to be consulted, the decision ought ultimately to rest with the transport authority. That puts the responsibility where it should be, but it does not take away bus operators' ability to go to the High Court if they are not happy with the decision. Let us be clear that when we are talking about quality contracts or quality partnerships, the system is the same as that which operates so successfully with the railways. We are talking about a franchise that people bid for.
	There need to be safeguards for small operators. Two in my local authority, Bu-Val and Rossendale, provided a service when First Bus refused to do so. I hope that when the quality contract for Rochdale is decided, those two operators will be properly included. Let us make it clear: if we are setting a quality contract, we do not have to set every route and give every route to one operator. There needs to be a dialogue. The problem at the moment is that it all goes one way. If the bus operators cannot get their way, they walk away from the service.
	The Bill gives those powers to transport authorities, and I welcome that. I hope that in Committee Ministers will consider how we can simplify the process as well as speed it up and put the responsibility back where it belongs, with local authorities.
	Finally, I want to talk about road user pricing. I am disappointed that the Government have bottled out of introducing national road user pricing. I remember coming into the House when the Chancellor was Secretary of State for Transport; at that time the Government were talking about running a pricing pilot for freight and lorries. The idea was to make it cost-neutral for British lorries but to introduce a system that ensured that the foreign lorries that use our roads and pay nothing would have to contribute. Such systems operate in Austria and the Czech Republic. When a driver gets to the border, they have to buy a beacon. They register it and they are then charged for the miles that they use on that road.
	Such a scheme would have brought in an additional £250 million revenue for the Government that could have been used to improve transport. It would have involved no extra tax for anybody in this country, because we would want to make it cost-neutral for British lorries. It would have removed the unfair disadvantage that many of our hauliers face when foreign lorries come over the border from Ireland or wherever. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) spoke earlier about the traffic offences that such drivers commit. If they had a beacon, they would be registered and easy to chase up.
	The scheme would have given us extra resources, and the Government ought to go back to it. Opening the hard shoulder on our motorways at times of peak traffic is not a solution. As I said earlier, we do not merely need solutions for what has happened in the past 20 years; we need to talk about future problems and what needs to be done. A national road user pricing scheme needs to be introduced, and I think that launching it for lorries would have been non-controversial and allowed the Government to evaluate the pilot and put the scheme into operation.
	I support the power of local transport authorities to introduce their own schemes. I have supported Greater Manchester passenger transport authority in putting forward its scheme, but I have always made it clear that we must have investment up front. As I said earlier, we should be talking about dealing with the problems of the future, not those of the past. If we are to move people from cars to public transport and get that modal switch, public transport must be cheap, clean, efficient, environmentally friendly and readily available. In far too many of our conurbations, that is not currently the case and there is no choice.
	There must be an integrated transport system, with rail, light rail and buses working together. I am disappointed that the Government have not approved the Greater Manchester scheme yet, and I hope that they do. I hope that in Greater Manchester we can demonstrate that such schemes can deliver the sort of service that is not being delivered elsewhere. It is essential that we do so nationally, and I am disappointed that the Government have bottled out of any discussion of, or meaningful move towards, a national system of road user pricing.
	Notwithstanding that, the Bill is welcome and represents a vast improvement on the situation that we faced in the past. The bus has arrived late—11 years too late, in my view—but thank goodness that the Government have listened and that in future, we will perhaps have buses that are regulated and on time, and fares set by democratically elected politicians.

Kerry McCarthy: Sorry, I did not spot the right hon. Gentleman. His contribution was more than half an hour long, but was based, as far as I could see, entirely on the view of the motorist, and he cited a range of motorist organisations. Apart from making a plea for historic vehicles not to have to be adapted for wheelchair access, he made no mention of other public transport in his constituency. That says an awful lot about the priorities of Opposition Members.
	We have, however, heard some excellent speeches from some of my hon. Friends. That is because many of them recognise that public transport is a key factor in social inclusion and something that we must tackle if we are to address poverty and exclusion. That is certainly a factor in my constituency and in the Bristol conurbation as a whole, where congestion is a problem and road traffic is among the slowest in Britain. I have seen figures cited for the average speed of between 13 and 16 mph, but anyone who travels through Bristol in the rush hour will know that that is incredibly optimistic. Indeed, anyone who can manage 3 mph is doing quite well.
	We have also suffered from overcrowded and overpriced commuter rail services. A deal was recently reached with First Great Western to try to move that forward, but people who use the service to get to work in Bristol have faced serious problems. We also have an underused local branch line—the Severn Beach line—running through my constituency, which has suffered from endless cancellations. Somebody who misses the 5.30 am train and has to wait for the next one at 6.30 am will suffer incredibly and might lose their job. Thankfully, more frequent services are being introduced in May, but there is a lot of ground to be made up.
	The issue that I receive the most complaints about are the unreliable, overpriced and shabby bus services. It is no coincidence that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) talked eloquently about the problems with bus services in their constituencies, because FirstBus runs the services there as well as in Bristol. I hope that the measures in the Bill will be able to address the problem.
	Unless we can sort out the public transport system, things will eventually just grind to a halt in Bristol. There is already a concern about businesses not wanting to be located in certain parts of Bristol, because it is impossible for people to get to work on time or even to get to work at all because of the cancellation of some services. People going to meetings spend a huge amount of time sitting in traffic jams. Business West is supportive of some of the measures in the Bill, because it hopes that they will address those issues.
	Employment is another key issue. We have a big regeneration project in the centre of Bristol called Cabot Circus, which will create about 4,000 new jobs. I hope that those jobs will be filled by people from the deprived inner-city wards that I represent and from some of the wards in Bristol, South which have comparatively high unemployment rates, too. However, as some of my hon. Friends said, unless people can be sure that they will be able to get to work on time and that there are bus services to the areas where they live, they will find it difficult to take up those jobs and to keep them. FirstBus's punctuality rate in the last period for which statistics are available, up to October-November 2007, is 80 per cent. That just is not good enough, because I would imagine that most of the 20 per cent. of occasions when FirstBus is not punctual are during peak times, which is when congestion is worst.
	The Government have a drive to get more lone parents into work when their children reach a certain age, which I support because we want to tackle child poverty. However, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions has just published a good report on that, and all the evidence shows that the issue for lone parents is not finding work in the first place, especially in Bristol, where there are some 10,000 vacancies in the economy. Rather, the issue is what is known as churn—people entering jobs but not being able to keep them. Sometimes that is because of the hidden costs associated with the jobs—for example, losing the right to free school meals or free prescriptions, but the cost and reliability of transport are also major factors, particularly for parents with child care responsibilities. They need to base their working lives around getting the kids to school on time, getting to work, then making sure that they are back at the school gate at 3.30 or 4 o'clock. Too many lone parents to whom I have spoken are finding that, because they cannot rely on the bus service, they are having to get cabs as a last resort. If they are working for not much more than the minimum wage, having to find a cab fare once or twice a week can make the difference between being better off in work—and being able to keep that employment—and deciding that they would be better off on benefits, despite all the associated long-term poverty that that would bring.
	I also want to mention a minor point about which I have received a number of complaints in my constituency. FirstBus has now introduced a no-change policy on its buses. If the bus driver did not have enough float to give a passenger the correct change, the passenger used to be able to use their ticket to claim the change from another driver or use their ticket on another service. I am not quite sure how the ticket was earmarked to show that they were owed that money, but they were able to claim it back in that way. FirstBus has now introduced a policy whereby the passenger has to go to a travel shop within a week to claim the money that they are owed. So if someone with child care responsibilities who is juggling a busy life pays for a £1 bus fare with a £10 note, and the driver is unable to give them change, they will have a week to go into the city centre to claim back the money. That is effectively taking the money out of their pocket, and they will also have to incur extra costs by going to collect their change. I have written to FirstBus about this, as I believe that that policy needs to be challenged.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) mentioned concessionary fares for young people. Representatives of the Youth Parliament and the Youth Cabinet in my constituency, and in Bristol as a whole, have also lobbied me about that matter, and I hope that it is something that we can investigate further.
	Some good progress has been made. We are considering a package of showcase bus routes in Bristol, and one that has recently opened runs through my constituency in east Bristol. The Department for Transport has earmarked about £42 million as a contribution towards the project. If all the proposed showcase bus routes across the West of England partnership area—not just in Bristol—come on track, there will be 35 to 40 new bus routes, which will make a major difference.
	However, a lot more needs to be done. This all hinges on the issue of integrated and strategic leadership. That is why I believe that the provisions in the Bill on integrated transport authorities are so important for such places as Bristol. If we look at all the things we could do to improve transport, we find that most of them will be very difficult to achieve unless the four local authorities that work together on the local transport plan can do so in a much more co-ordinated way than they do at the moment. For example, a long time ago, there were plans for about 19 park-and-ride schemes around the outskirts of Bristol. Obviously, Bristol would have been the beneficiary of those schemes, in that the congestion there tends to be the result of people travelling into the city to work, to shop or for leisure activities. However, it was impossible to get the agreement of the local authorities that surround Bristol to base the park-and-ride schemes in those areas. In the end, about three schemes were established before the whole thing ground to a halt. If those four local authorities could work together in a more co-ordinated way, there would be a significantly greater chance of setting up more of those schemes.
	We also need to try to achieve a significant increase in rail capacity, once the current problems with the franchise have been sorted out. Most people accept that the franchise that was entered into when First Great Western won the bid met the current demand but did not anticipate future demand. I believe that there is a lot of latent demand, and that if we run better rail services and increase capacity, many more people would be prepared to use the trains than is the case at the moment.
	The most important issue relates to buses, however. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough and, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) spoke of the advantages of having a transport authority that could introduce improvements to bus services. Bristol has certainly reached the stage at which a quality partnership or, probably, a quality contract will be the solution. It is quite clear that deregulation has not worked; I get more complaints about bus services than almost any other local issue. If we can move towards having an integrated transport authority for what is known as CUBA—the counties that used to be Avon—we can start to look at how we can exert more control over our bus services.
	Let me finish by dealing with congestion charging. I occasionally receive letters from constituents complaining about the possibility of such charging and my past support for it. The authors of every one of those letters have in common a lack of faith in the public transport system, which is why they insist on their right to use their cars. There is always the problem of whether we are putting the cart before the horse, but the money raised from pilot schemes dealing with hypothecation can be put into improving public transport. That is a really good move, but we also need to ensure that some of the money comes through for things like the showcase bus routes first. Unless we have done something significantly to improve the bus services as well, when we start charging people it will cause a huge amount of resentment.
	Finally, on the two issues of the integrated transport authority and road charging, many business groups in my constituency are certainly very supportive, as long as the policies are implemented properly. As the Bill passes through Parliament, I hope that it will give us the power to take action on both those fronts.

Lee Scott: I apologise for not being in my place for all of this debate, but I have been serving on the Transport Committee this afternoon. I would like to make just two brief points that I have also raised in that Select Committee in the past. The first is congestion charging.
	I want to make it clear that I am not against the principle of congestion charging in any shape or form. What I am against, however, is using congestion charging as a means of taxation, particularly when it does not ease congestion or take into account the consultation that is supposed to happen before it is introduced. I am, of course, referring to congestion charging in London, which could be applicable elsewhere. If congestion charging is brought in to ease road congestion—that is obviously what it is meant to do—that is fine, but there must be full consultation at local level, which must then be taken into account. That has certainly not been the case in London. I can vouch for this personally, as I drive here two days a week and use London transport for the rest of the week, so I know that congestion has not eased in any way—and nothing will convince me otherwise. I believe that people should be honest about the reasons for introducing congestion charging.
	That brings me, secondly, to the conditions in which people are expected to travel. We currently experience conditions of travel—I am thinking of my constituents in Ilford, North, but this is applicable across London and, indeed, across much of our country—that are so bad that it would be illegal to transport animals in them. I am not being over-dramatic about that; I am being exact. Standing with someone else's chin in one's face in absolutely abysmal conditions is terrible; and paying an exorbitant amount of money for that privilege makes it worse. What I therefore want is quality local transport that people wish to travel on. That will truly ease the congestion and allow the congestion charge to do what it is meant to do and make things better for all.
	I wish to add one brief final point, which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) raised in my absence. It is to do with foreign vehicles on our roads and how the enforcement of the congestion charge and other matters can be carried out in respect of those vehicles. There are increasing numbers of foreign vehicles on our roads. In some cases, they are not fit to be on our roads, because they have not had the equivalent of our MOT done in their own country and they cause a variety of hazards. Yet their owners do not pay fines and do not obey our laws, which surely need to be enforced. If it could be carried out, enforcement would make a vast difference across our country. It would contribute more income and would help to make the congestion charge fair for owners of all vehicles alike.
	I did not want to take up much of the House's time today; I just wanted to raise those few points.

Rob Marris: The hon. Lady said earlier today that she and her colleagues will test the relevant clauses strongly in Committee, to do all that they can to ensure that no such circumvention is possible and the funds stay local and remain devoted to transport. That is not simply saying, "I want to keep the Government on the hook"; it is saying, "Our policy is to have these local funds kept locally." That might be a good idea, but it is hypothecation. The Conservative party has embraced hypothecation, certainly on transport. That is a new policy from its Front Bench, and when I heard it I was somewhat taken aback—and I was further taken aback when I was told that it was not hypothecation. All Labour Members were a bit surprised when the hon. Lady said that.
	The Bill is welcome. It will be welcomed in metropolitan areas such as the west midlands, and it is sad that Her Majesty's Opposition have a policy which is a complete shambles and full of contradictions. It demonstrates once again that they are not fit for Government.

Jim Fitzpatrick: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall make some progress. If I have some time at the end, I shall be happy to give way. I have a 50-minute speech to fit into 15 minutes, which will not be possible.
	Hon. Members have also spoken about the need to do still more to empower their local communities, so that people get the quality of service that they deserve. The Bill will allow local authorities to do just that.
	I shall respond to some of the points made in the debate before making some concluding remarks to reinforce why the Bill should be read a Second time and why the Opposition's amendment should be voted down. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), who spoke first after the Front-Bench speeches, said that he would speak briefly, but he spoke strongly about his constituents' experiences, including those of his visitors today from Gateshead. He explained in detail why he supported the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the Tory position of opposing the Bill through their amendment is quite incredible. Between them, they very effectively exposed the weakness of the Conservative position. The Opposition say that regulation plays no part in London's success, but will not commit themselves to deregulating. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) cites Brighton and Hove as a good example of success, but omits to mention that Brighton and Hove council supports the Bill, as do many other local authorities including, I believe, Conservative ones.
	The hon. Member for Lewes made a number of points. He stated that unelected members should not be given a vote on the integrated transport authorities. The intention behind the Bill is that it will be for authorities in an area to review whether an ITA's membership should include persons other than representatives of the local authorities that make up the ITA area, and what the voting arrangements should be. In making appointments to an ITA, authorities will be bound by the political balance requirements of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and other relevant legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the traffic commissioners have the expertise to take on their new bus roles. I am sure that he is aware that they already have significant powers in the bus sector. For example, they have the power to issue operator licences in the bus and coach sector. Details of all local bus services must be registered with the local traffic commissioner, and they have a remit to investigate if bus services have been registered but are not being run properly and to take action against operators when things are going wrong. They will not be taking on new work in a vacuum; they are highly professional decision makers, experienced in applying the law, and have earned the respect of the industry through their expertise and experience.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bill will change bus services that are working well. He and other hon. Members mentioned Brighton and Hove, Cambridge, Norfolk and so on. This is an enabling Bill, giving local authorities the powers that they need to improve their bus services. As such, there is no requirement on authorities to make any changes. If they feel that bus services in their area are working well, they will simply not use the powers available to them. Of course, at any later date they will be able to use the powers that the Bill devolves to them if they feel that changes are needed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith), graphically described the problems that her constituents are experiencing and the importance of the Bill to them. She said that this issue was at the top of their agenda, and I commend the amount of work that she has done to ensure that their concerns are raised effectively. She made a number of points, many of which will be dealt with in Committee. Specifically, she asked for clarification of the public interest determination. The quality contracts schemes and how public interest will be determined by the approvals board are contained in clause 19, which sets out the clear public interest criteria that must be met in making a scheme. The Department will publish guidance to assist both local authorities and the approvals board. Indeed, we published the first draft of that guidance in December.

Clive Efford: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?

Jim Fitzpatrick: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall make some progress. I will try to give way toward the end of my speech.
	The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) claimed that the Bill watered down the requirements for consultation on local road charging. However, local charging authorities will retain all their existing powers to consult interested persons and the public, and to hold local inquiries.
	The Bill merely removes the Secretary of State's powers to consult and hold an inquiry, and to require a local charging authority to do the same. Those powers were needed when the Secretary of State had the role of approving local services, as they enabled her to ensure that a proper local consultation process or inquiry had been held in connection with a scheme that had come before her for approval. However, in the absence of that approval role, there is no need for the Secretary of State to interfere in decisions by a local authority about what is best for its area.
	The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire also claimed that the Bill was about national road pricing. It is not: the implementation of any such scheme would require further legislation, and the fact that more than 80 per cent. of current congestion is in urban areas means that that is where the immediate priority lies. The Bill focuses on giving local authorities greater freedom so that they can tackle their local congestion problems.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire also asked for clarification about historic vehicles, in which I know that he has a keen interest. Clause 50 makes it clear that the use of historic buses for tourists would not be prohibited: its provisions apply only to taxis and private-hire vehicles that are used to provide local bus services and which are deemed to be wheelchair accessible. Accessibility will be determined by the local authority, in accordance with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I hope that that clarification satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.
	The amendment says that the Bill should be denied a Second Reading because it
	"encourages...Quality Contract Schemes...fails to give due weight to...consultation and local consent...and because it transfers revenue-raising powers to the National Assembly for Wales".
	The Bill gives local authorities a range of options to choose from, according to their local circumstances. Where partnerships are working, they can continue to flourish, but where they are failing to deliver real improvements in services—as is demonstrably the case in some areas—it is important that local authorities have other options at their disposal to deliver improvements that will benefit passengers. That is why quality contracts schemes need to be a more realistic option, and why the Bill will enable quality partnership schemes to cover service frequencies, timings and fares.
	On local road charging schemes, it is right that decisions designed to tackle congestion should be taken at a local level. It is clearly important that local authorities consult with those who would be affected by a scheme, but they must determine how best to engage with interest groups in their areas. Moreover, it is not novel to transfer revenue-raising powers to the National Assembly for Wales; it is already open to the Scottish Parliament to make provision for trunk road charging in Scotland. Any proposals for charging on Welsh trunk roads would be subject to full scrutiny by the National Assembly.
	After the distractions posed by road pricing, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) returned the Chamber's attention to the Bill's central concern—the provision of decent bus services. He asked a number of questions about the details of the Bill, and he gave notice that he would return to those details in Committee. I am sure that he will do so.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made his usual thoughtful contribution, and we are grateful for his qualified assessment of the Bill's usefulness, and for his statement that he would support it this evening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) then delivered a stinging rebuke of deregulation. In response to an intervention, he explained to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) that the blame for poor bus services could be laid at the door of previous Conservative Governments. He offered an analogy with arson, saying that one does not blame the fire brigade that tackles an arson fire: instead, one blames the arsonist responsible for it.
	As an ex-fireman, that analogy had real appeal for me, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey added that it was deregulation that had caused the problems with bus services, and that is something that we are dealing with. He then detailed the work that he was doing with, and on behalf of, his constituents to improve his local bus services. I acknowledge his concerns about procedures, and his final comment was that we should "end the nightmare", as he described it.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough raised a series of legitimate road safety concerns, but I was somewhat confused by the fact that although he asked us to go further in relation to the clauses he mentioned, he is declining to give the Bill a Second Reading. That just does not make sense to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made a powerful contribution detailing his and his constituents' experiences, good and bad. He expressed his support in general terms, and also expressed his aspirations for more support for proposals including that for a successful Sheffield tram.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) raised the issue of bus company subsidies and encouraged the Government to look more seriously at finding solutions on quality contracts this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) told us about his election address and about writing to the previous Secretary of State for Transport on the issue. I congratulate him on his success, and I expect that he will want to secure a place on the Bill Committee, to ensure that he fully delivers for his constituents. He clearly described the political dividing lines on the Bill, and I hope that the Bill proves a useful campaign tool for him, as well as satisfying his electorate. I am sure that the description he gave of the Conservative party being on the side of the bus operators, while he is on the side of the passengers, will resonate with the good people of Wirral, West.
	My very patient hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) got an opportunity to raise the issues of concern to her. She compared transport to other essentials for her constituents, and especially mentioned parents who are juggling work and child care. She demonstrated how in touch she is with her constituents, describing the problems encountered in Bristol and explaining why the Bill is important, not least to young people. She raises transport issues, including cycling issues, regularly with the Department, and I am sure that she welcomed the Secretary of State's recent funding statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and my hon. Friend the bus driver from Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) were the last Government Back Benchers to speak; they reinforced the arguments on the need for the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) raised Welsh issues, and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet made much of the framework powers. Those powers were introduced at the specific request of Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government. The Bill devolves a new framework power to the National Assembly that will enable it to make provision about charging on Welsh trunk roads. There is nothing novel about that, as I said earlier. It is already open to the Scottish Parliament to make provision for trunk road charging in Scotland. The Bill does not allow for charging on all roads in Wales. Charging on local authority roads—95 per cent. of the Welsh road network—would remain a matter for the relevant local authorities, not the Welsh Assembly Government.
	Ministers in the Assembly Government have made it clear that if they were to propose charging on trunk roads in Wales, it would be specifically in the context of new road developments in the areas with the worst congestion problems. Furthermore, it would be for the National Assembly for Wales to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise the powers, and if so, how to do so. That would be done through making what is called an Assembly measure. Any measure would have to be debated by the Assembly and would be subject to its scrutiny procedures. We are absolutely clear that those powers do not enable tax-raising. The Government of Wales Act 2006 does not allow tax-raising powers to be devolved, and clause 115 of the Bill makes it clear that it deals with schemes for imposing charges.
	I have not had a chance to speak about the passenger champion—an issue raised by hon. Members on both of the Chamber—or the detail of other aspects of the Bill. As I say, I have a 50-minute speech and fewer than 15 minutes in which to deliver it, so much will be done in Committee.
	In conclusion, the Bill makes real the Government's commitment to devolving greater powers and responsibility to local authorities. It does so in respect of three areas—local bus services, local transport governance and local road charging schemes. It is only by creating those real, new opportunities for local communities that we can achieve the transformation of local transport that is still needed in so many areas. The Bill will create real, new opportunities for local communities, and I urge every local authority to exploit those new opportunities to their fullest potential. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Opposition amendment, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put motions 9 to 12 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a point that I might come back to later in my speech.
	The set of values and commitment to active engagement was also one of the reasons why many of the schools became part of the network and clearly wanted to work with co-operative enterprises. But what does a co-operative model mean for education in the early part of the 21st century? Are co-operative values still relevant? I believe so. By harnessing co-operative values in education, we can raise standards and ensure greater parental and community involvement. A co-operative model means that, rather than pitting school against school, we can increase collaboration and co-operation among schools in order to share best practice and resources. My right hon. Friend and fellow co-operator the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has suggested that there is
	"significant future potential for a co-operative model"
	in education, and I quite agree. If we think about what makes a good school, the involvement of teachers, pupils, parents and the community is what makes that good school successful. It is precisely this involvement that co-operative values are able to instil.
	One of the reasons that I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP is that co-operative socialism is not just a lofty set of ideals divorced from everyday life, but practical politics with a strong history of delivery. Building on its strong and long-standing commitment to education, the co-operative and mutual sector is now actively engaged with a number of schools. It is working with a number of specialist business and enterprise colleges, and is playing a key part in the Manchester academy programme.
	By instilling co-operative values and ideas into the curriculum, schools have seen a dramatic effect, significantly enriching the experiences of young people. Levels of student attainment and Ofsted reports clearly demonstrate the benefits of using co-operative values to deliver the breadth of curriculum areas and personal development. Schools using the values as a framework have made exceptional progress in raising levels of achievement. For example, Sir Thomas Boughey high school and co-operative business and enterprise college in Staffordshire has raised the proportion of pupils achieving five or more GCSEs from 46 per cent. in 2004 to 79 per cent. in 2007.
	As I said earlier, as well as instilling co-operative values as part of the curriculum, the first co-operative trust school has now opened at Reddish Vale technology college. It is the first of its kind in the UK to be based on a mutual structure, with a wide range of organisations focusing on education and training, employability and local regeneration. Jenny Campbell, the head teacher of Reddish Vale, has said:
	"The Trust is a fantastic opportunity for local people to have a greater role in the life of the school. We hope that as the trust develops it will enable better life-long opportunities to all those involved. As the trust develops it will be down to the members who will volunteer to make a difference locally. The developments will give huge opportunities for the curriculum inside school, linked to a wider learning community across Reddish and Brinnington."
	There is now a clear potential to develop these new models for trust schools—

Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that that the co-operative governance model offers opportunities to bind in businesses such as those in Plymouth's cultural industries with institutions such as the performing arts college in Lipson that no other model can really offer?

Jim Knight: I certainly agree with that. It is some time since I visited Lipson community college, but I was very impressed by what I saw there. Plymouth is a centre for the creative industries, and if that college can pursue a co-operative trust model and bind in long-term relationships on the basis of co-operative principles and a co-operative ethos while incorporating strong partners from the creative industries in the region and the sub-region around Plymouth, it will be an extremely good proposition for parents and learners in my hon. Friend's city.
	I do not know the extent to which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North has discussed the matter with her local authority, but this would clearly be a good time for her to do so, because it should be on the authority's agenda as one of a range of options for raising school standards. I am sure that the authority would welcome discussion with the co-operative movement about the contribution that it could make in her city.
	The Government welcome with open arms any organisation or movement within reason—and certainly one as ethical as the co-operative movement—that demonstrates a clear, unambiguous commitment to improving the quality of schools through trust arrangements. Everything I know about the co-operative movement suggests to me that it can do exactly that in Portsmouth and across the country, so I welcome my hon. Friend's championing of its cause. I hope very much that we shall see her efforts bear fruit in the form of improved standards, more choice, more stakeholder engagement and accountability in her city, and more control for parents and children in Portsmouth and beyond in the years to come.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eight o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 25 March 2008: In column 34, delete "Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con)" and insert "Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab)"